i909.r HAUPT— NATION AND THE WATERWAYS. 59 



should carry great weight, indicating as they do the fear of trench- 

 ing on the rights of the states and checking their development by 

 trespassing upon their own resources. 



Presidents Jackson, Tyler, Polk and Pierce also emphasized these 

 views by their emphatic vetoes and even after the war, when Con- 

 gress had adopted a policy of making such appropriations, Presi- 

 dents Grant, Arthur and Cleveland vetoed bills, while others failed 

 of passage because they did not contain enough patronage for local 

 projects to secure the necessary votes. This pernicious principle, 

 which was feared by the founders of the republic, was clearly shown 

 in the application of the State of New York for federal aid in the 

 construction of the Erie Canal, a work of undoubted national im- 

 port. When its legislature sent a committee to Washington on 

 December 21, 181 1, President Monroe stated that he was embar- 

 rassed by scruples derived from his interpretation of the Consti- 

 tution. The next day, the Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gal- 

 latin, of Pennsylvania, stated that he was under the opinion that 

 pecuniary aid could not be given, but that sufficient grants of land 

 might now be made without inconvenience to the fiscal affairs of the 

 union. The opinion prevailed in Congress that it would be wise to 

 amend the Constitution for such purposes, but the delegation 

 felt it a 



" Duty to declare, on all proper occasions, a decided opinion that the 

 States would not consent to vest in the national government a power to cut 

 up their territory, for the purpose of digging canals." 



It was also reported : 



" Your committee found another idea operating with baleful effect, though 

 seldom and cautiously expressed. The population and resources of the 

 State of New York furnish no pleasant reflection to men, whose minds arc 

 imbued with state jealousies; and although the proposed canal must not only 

 be of the highest importance to the western states as well as to the States 

 of Pennsylvania and Maryland, and greatly promote the prosperity of the 

 whole union, it was obvious that an opinion as to its superior benefit to 

 this state was sedulously inculcated. ... It became evident that the object 

 of this state would not be separately attended to and your committee were 

 desired to prepare a general system ... as being necessary to secure the 

 consent of a majority of the House of Representatives. . . . Others again, 

 who have too much understanding to doubt the resources of the state and 



